W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > February 2007

RE: SOAP Response and IRI style

From: Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:54:42 -0800
To: "'Youenn Fablet'" <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01bb01c75542$1c7f3650$3501a8c0@DELLICIOUS>

Thank you for this comment.  The Working Group this issue as a CR120 [1]. 

The latest editor's draft [2] clarifies the handling of repeated elements,
and of elements missing in the instance data.

Unless you let us know otherwise within 2 weeks, we will assume you agree
with the resolution of this issue.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR120

Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Youenn Fablet
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 7:42 AM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: SOAP Response and IRI style
> When the soap response MEP is used to bound an in-out operation, the
> input being defined by a schema,
> the input is serialized in the URI following the url-encoded
> serialization (section 6.7.2).
> This serialization requires the use of the IRI style which puts a
> constraint on the kind of operations that can be bound to the soap
> response mep.
> It seems sensible to me that inout operations can be bound to the
> soap-response mep if:
>     - the input message is a #none kind of message (I did not found any
> text about this case by the way, I may have missed something)
>     - the input message is a #element kind of message with the element
> schema following the IRI style constraints
> Does this make sense?
> Should we add some text in the specification to clarify this?
>     Youenn
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 22:54:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:31:06 UTC